Command A+ vs GPT-4.1 nano
Wins 6 of 7 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Images and charts · Long documents · Following instructions
Wins 0 of 7 areas
—
Command A+ is the stronger all-rounder.GPT-4.1 nano is cheaper.
Scores updated · 19 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the seven areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- Images and chartsUnderstanding pictures, charts and video40Command A+4 of 4 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software30Command A+3 of 3 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking20Command A+2 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own10Command A+1 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Command A+1 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10Command A+1 of 1 test
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 each
Agents, long documents and following instructions rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
GPT-4.1 nano costs 72% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Command A+ pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+68.4points ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+41.9points ahead
- Reasons across sets of long documentsAA-LCR+32.4points ahead
Where GPT-4.1 nano pulls ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+4.8points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 19 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingCommand A+
- Terminal-Bench HardCommand A+ by 21.2253.8+21.2
- Terminal-Bench 2.1Command A+ by 19.122.83.7+19.1
- SciCodeCommand A+ by 12.638.525.9+12.6
ReasoningCommand A+
- GPQA DiamondCommand A+ by 24.976.151.2+24.9
- Humanity's Last ExamCommand A+ by 8.2123.8+8.2
- CritPttie0.30tie
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationCommand A+ by 68.485.817.4+68.4
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyGPT-4.1 nano by 4.88.913.7+4.8
Images and chartsCommand A+
- MathVistaCommand A+ by 24.480.656.2+24.4
- MMMU-ProCommand A+ by 23.163.240.1+23.1
- MMMUCommand A+ by 19.775.155.4+19.7
- CharXiv (RQ)Command A+ by 12.252.740.5+12.2
Following instructionsCommand A+
- IFBenchCommand A+ by 41.973.932+41.9
Other results4 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Command A+ by 63.480.717.3+63.4
- AA-OmniscienceCommand A+ by 53.6-4-57.6+53.6
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexCommand A+ by 16.727.811.1+16.7
- AA IntelligenceCommand A+ by 5.313.17.8+5.3
Questions people ask
Which is better, Command A+ or GPT-4.1 nano?
Command A+ wins six of the seven areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, images and charts, long documents and following instructions. GPT-4.1 nano wins none, but costs 72% less. They are level on facts.
Which is better for coding?
Command A+. It wins 3 of the 3 coding tests both models report; GPT-4.1 nano wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Command A+ costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.50 per million output tokens; GPT-4.1 nano costs $0.10 and $0.40. That makes GPT-4.1 nano about 72% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 19 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 15 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 4 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.